Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Israel: Palestinians

Baroness Tonge: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the government of Israel following the recent destruction of Palestinian olive and almond trees in Wadi Fukin; and what action they plan to take to ensure that the families receive compensation.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: While we have not raised this specific incident with the Israeli authorities, officials from our Embassy in Tel Aviv do express our serious concerns to the Israeli government on a regular basis about the destruction of olive trees, whether by the Israeli authorities or by extremist settlers. They raised the issue of destruction of olive trees most recently with an Israeli Police Spokesperson on 13 May. Compensation is a matter between the families concerned and the Israeli authorities.

Israel: Palestinians

Baroness Tonge: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the government of Israel concerning their rules of engagement following the testimony of Israel Defence Force soldiers of indiscriminate fire during Operation Protective Edge.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: On 2 June I met with the Israeli Military Advocate General, who is leading the Israel Defence Forces investigations into Operation Protective Edge, and with the Israeli Ambassador to London, where I discussed the issue of accountability. I noted that it was key for Israel to show that they would not tolerate impunity.

Israel: Palestinians

Baroness Tonge: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the government of Israel following the decision of the Military Advocate General not to seek an indictment over the killing of four Palestinian children on the beach in Gaza in July 2014.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Our Ambassador in Tel Aviv met the Israeli Military Advocate General on 17 June, during which he discussed this incident.

Israel: Palestinians

Baroness Tonge: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many of the hospitals, primary healthcare facilities and ambulances damaged or destroyed by Israeli strikes during Operation Protective Edge have been rebuilt or replaced; and what assurances they have obtained from the government of Israel that any further attacks on Gaza will not target medical personnel and infrastructure.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The British Government does not have the figures for exact number of facilities that have been rebuilt or replaced. The UN is carrying out a detailed needs assessment which includes a Recovery Framework, to cost and prioritise interventions for reconstruction. While the Government recognises Israel’s right to take proportionate action to defend itself, we have, in the past, urged Israel to do everything it can to avoid civilian casualties, and to exercise restraint in line with humanitarian law.

Israel: Palestinians

Baroness Tonge: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have held with the government of Israel concerning the number of Palestinian journalists killed and injured in the Gaza war zone and in West Bank demonstrations.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Officials at our Embassy in Tel Aviv have registered our concerns with the Israel Defence Forces about the reported killing and wounding of Palestinian photo-journalists.

Nuclear Power Stations: Saudi Arabia

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they are seeking assurances from the government of Saudi Arabia that the 15 nuclear power stations planned to be built with Russian involvement will not result in the production of fissile material that could be used to produce nuclear weapons.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) sets the framework for States to pursue peaceful nuclear technology with appropriate safeguards to prevent that technology being used to develop nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia is a member of the NPT, and we expect them to continue to remain in compliance with their Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) as they develop their civil nuclear programme. We also continue to encourage Saudi Arabia to join the many non-nuclear weapon States that have given the IAEA additional information about their nuclear activities, and expanded access to check it, by signing an Additional Protocol to their Safeguards Agreement.

Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe

Lord Laird: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they participate in the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe; and, if so, whether participating has changed their policies in any way.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The UK was a founder member of the then Committee for Security and Co-operation in Europe (CSCE - later renamed Organisation - OSCE in 1994) when it was created in 1975, and has been an active participating State throughout its existence.   The OSCE is, and continues to be, an important means of pursuing a range of UK policy priorities, to promote UK values on human rights and democracy, our interests in conventional arms control, along with wider European security issues and conflict prevention.   The UK plays an influential role in the OSCE. We work to defend OSCE commitments and principles, the OSCE institutions, and challenge failure to respect obligations.   The OSCE oversees a number of commitments on how participating States have agreed to behave towards each other and towards their citizens. Though these norms are regularly breached, their existence provides an important standard against which the people of the participating States can attempt to hold their leaders accountable.   Ongoing OSCE discussion of opportunities and challenges to the future of European security also contribute to UK policy objectives. The OSCE remains the main multilateral forum that brings together 57 countries in the Euro-Atlantic area, including Russia, the United States and EU member states, on a range of key security issues and is home to a number of interlocking instruments which form the basis for conventional arms control across the Euro-Atlantic area.

Rwanda

Lord Alton of Liverpool: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the government of Rwanda about the termination of the BBC’s local language service, human rights in that country, and proposed changes to the constitution to permit a third presidential term.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Rwanda has made huge strides forward since 1994, impressively lifting large numbers of its citizens out of poverty. We are proud of the role that the UK has played in contributing to this success, and as a committed partner of Rwanda we regularly engage in constructive dialogue with the Rwandan government on a wide range of issues affecting the country’s economic and social development. This has included raising our concerns about restrictions placed on civil and political rights in Rwanda and other human rights concerns as set out in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO)’s annual Human Rights and Democracy Report. A vibrant, free and plural media system is in Rwanda’s interests and we are disappointed at the continued suspension of the BBC Kinyarwanda service, a popular and trusted source of news. The FCO press statement of 4 June set out our views. Our High Commissioner in Kigali has regularly discussed this case and the importance of media freedom with the Rwandan government. We continue to urge the Rwandan authorities to allow the BBC to resume its broadcasts as soon as possible. We have regularly set out our belief that successful elections and the democratic transition of power in Rwanda will be important in securing the country’s long-term development and stability, and have discussed with the Rwandan authorities the importance of ensuring that the conditions are in place to ensure free and fair Presidential elections in 2017.

Subsidiarity

Lord Garel-Jones: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the functioning of the principle of subsidiarity as a result of the procedures brought into effect by the Treaty of Lisbon; and what action they plan to take as part of the United Kingdom's renegotiation with its European Union partners to ensure that the subsidiarity principle is strengthened to the benefit of national governments and parliaments.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The Balance of Competences Review examined how the principle of subsidiarity applied in areas of EU action. It found that the mechanisms for protecting subsidiarity and proportionality could be improved in a number of ways, in particular by improving the role of national parliaments as the guardians of subsidiarity and affording them closer involvement in the EU’s functioning. The Government is seeking a stronger role for national Parliaments as part of its renegotiation.

Syria

Lord Hylton: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to make contact with the democratic representatives of the cantons of Afrin, Kobane and Jazira, in Syria; if not, why not; and whether they plan to ask the United Nations mediator to make similar approaches.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The UK does not currently intend to make specific contact with the Kurdish cantons on political issues in Syria. The UK has engaged with Saleh Muslim, co-leader of the Democratic Union Party (PYD), who is their Foreign Affairs envoy. Saleh Muslim met UN Special Envoy Staffan De Mistura in May as part of the UN envoy’s consultations with parties trying to find a political settlement to the conflict. Syria’s political issues will need to be resolved through this wider political track.

Syria

Lord Hylton: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to enable recognised religious leaders in Syria to act in parallel with all those searching for political solutions for that country.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: We recognise the important contribution that recognised religious leaders can make on the Syria political track. Along with other leading members of civil society, they will need a strong voice in the debate on Syria’s future. The UK has engaged directly with a number of religious leaders and representatives of minority communities. The UK has also been funding projects aimed at promoting dialogue between different ethnic and sectarian groups in Syria, as we seek further progress on a political settlement. Minorities including Alawites, Christians, Druze, Kurds and Turkmen have been represented in these projects.

Israel

The Lord Bishop of Coventry: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of hostility towards religious minorities in Israel following the arsonist attack on and desecration of the Church of the Multiplication of the Loaves in Tabgha on the night of 17 June.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Freedom of religion or belief continues to be a priority for this Government. We regularly raise individual cases and discriminatory legislation with other governments and we support overseas programmes designed to overcome prejudice, discrimination and sectarianism.On 18 June, officials from our Embassy in Tel Aviv lobbied senior contacts in the Israeli National Security Council and Ministry of Foreign Affairs to ensure quick and high level condemnation and action from the Israeli government to catch the perpetrators of this attack. On 19 June our Ambassador in Tel Aviv issued a local statement criticising the vandalising and burning of the Church "Loaves and Fishes" at the Kineret. He said "This was a disgusting act of disrespect at one of Christianity's holiest sites. The British Government welcomes the determination of the Israeli authorities to bring those responsible to justice.”

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Bees

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the factors contributing to the decline of the honeybee population.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: UK honey bees and other pollinators play an essential role in ensuring our food security and sustaining the health of the natural environment. To help inform Defra’s National Pollinator Strategy (NPS), published in November 2014, the department commissioned a report on the ‘Status and Value of Pollinators and Pollination Services’. The report reviewed evidence on threats to pollinators, including the honey bee, and highlighted the many pressures pollinators face. These include aspects of land-use intensification (landscape alteration, cultivation in monocultures and agrochemical use) as well as urbanisation, invasive alien species, the spread of diseases and parasites, and climate change.   The NPS forms a framework for collective action to help manage and raise awareness of the pressures facing pollinators. The strategy seeks to address key gaps in our understanding about the status of pollinators, identifies specific policy and evidence actions for the Government and others, and identifies actions that everyone can take to help expand food, shelter and nest sites; increasing forage will have definite benefits for honey bees. The pressures honey bees face may have been offset by a recorded increase in beekeeping activity since 2008.

Air Pollution

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: To ask Her Majesty’s Government in what proportion of the United Kingdom land area legal air pollution limits are exceeded.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: 38 UK zones are exceeding EU air pollution limit values. An entire zone is considered to be in exceedance if any point within the zone boundary is in exceedance. While only 17.6% of total modelled road length exceeds EU limit values, the total land area covered by the 38 zones is equivalent to 72.6% of the total UK land area, but the points within the zones which are in exceedance cover a much smaller land area.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Statistics

Lord Kennedy of Southwark: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what data the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has stopped collecting since May 2010; and why.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: Defra periodically reviews all the information businesses have to provide to it. In 2014 we produced the Smarter Data Plan to ensure we only ask for information that is needed and used, and that it is easy to submit. Data that is no longer collected does not have an impact on how Defra delivers its policy priorities.   Since 2010 we have stopped collecting the following data sets:   · “Earnings and Hours of Agricultural and Horticultural Workers Survey” in 2011. A review of the survey concluded that suitable alternative data is published via the ONS Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings.   · Crop areas data collection ceased in 2011. The Home Grown Cereals Authority (HGCA) collect and publish this information.   · We stopped the collection of volatile fractions of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and mercury and platinum in particulate ambient air, which was monitored with other aspects of air quality under Directive 2004/107/EC, because the evidential value and cost effectiveness was low.   · In order to reduce burdens on local authorities, the following are no longer collected by Defra:   · Fixed penalty notices (FPN) issued for 15 environmental offences.   · Local Environmental Quality Survey of England (LEQSE).   · Annual survey (from 2001/02 to 2014/15) of litter and six other indicators of cleanliness: detritus, weed growth, staining, graffiti, fly-posting and leaf and blossom fall.   · Three yearly survey of local authority action on adapting to climate change.   · Air quality - NOx and primary PM10 emissions through local authorities’ estate and operations. This was stopped as it duplicated reporting under Article IV of the Environment Act 1995.   · Local Cleanliness National Indicator.   · Local authority self-assessment against standards for the control system for animal health stopped in April 2011.   · Local authority flood risk management capacity.

Pension Funds: Climate Change

Lord Harrison: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the possible impact of climate change on pensions funds; and whether they intend to invite the Prudential Regulation Authority to include this issue in its Climate Change Adaptation Report.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: The Climate Change Risk Assessment, published in 2012, identified the impact on investment funds from climate change. It found that impacts would be indirect but could be substantial and that it would be difficult to establish a link between impacts and financial performance. The assessment identified the increasing exposure of insurers due to flood risk.   As part of the current round of reporting under the Adaptation Reporting Power, the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) is focusing its report on the insurance sector and its role in addressing the increasing exposure of the sector to climate risks. It does not directly supervise pension funds.   The PRA’s report will inform our next national assessment of risk, due in 2017, and the National Adaptation Programme due around 2018.

Neonicotinoids

Lord Harries of Pentregarth: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of evidence that bees are harmed by the use of neonicotinoids, what plans they have to restrict the use of neonicotinoid-treated seeds.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: Decisions on the approval of pesticide active substances are made at European level. Since December 2013, three of the five neonicotinoids currently approved are not permitted for use on a wide range of crops considered “attractive to bees”. A number of other uses remain permitted under the EU approval. The restrictions currently in place for neonicotinoids are not time-limited.

Animal Welfare: Prosecutions

Lord Black of Brentwood: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many prosecutions there have been for animal cruelty in each of the last five years; and how many of those related to cruelty to cats.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: The number of prosecutions for causing unnecessary suffering to an animal under section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006 for each of the last five years, for which records are available, can be viewed in the table below. Centrally held statistics do not record the species of animal involved.  Defendants proceeded against at magistrates' court and found guilty at all courts for offences relating to causing, permitting or failing to prevent unnecessary suffering(1), England & Wales, 2010-2014(2)(3) OffenceOutcome20102011201220132014 Causing, permitting or failing to prevent unnecessary sufferingProceeded against1,0771,2771,3851,2661,016Found Guilty8561,0101,1011,006800   (1) An offence under SS4(1) & 32(1) and 4(2) & 32(1) Animal Welfare Act 2006, which came into force on 6 April 2007.   (2) The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.   (3) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.   Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice.   Ref: HL795

Water Companies

Lord Moynihan: To ask Her Majesty’s Government on what criteria water company retail arms can use regulated money to take over the customer base of water companies that have exited the market place.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: The Government is committed to enabling exit for the non-household part of a statutory water and sewerage undertaker’s retail business. Since the Water Act received Royal Assent in May 2014, we have been working with the water industry to develop the secondary legislation necessary to enable companies to exit at the opening of the new retail market in April 2017. We consulted on the proposed policy approach in December 2014 and will be publishing a further public consultation on the draft retail exits regulations shortly.   The Government has always been clear that exit must be voluntary. Our approach will enable each water and sewerage undertaker to decide whether or not they wish to exit the market for non-household retail services. Undertakers will also have the choice to continue to provide retail services to non-household customers within their area of appointment, under the existing licence of appointment. However, an undertaker can only exit to a retailer that holds one of the new Water Supply and Sewerage licences (WSSL). An undertaker cannot exit to another undertaker because undertakers will not be eligible to hold one of the new retail licences. An undertaker could not, therefore, take a transfer of customers from outside of its area of appointment.   The only exception to this rule would be in the case of a merger between undertakers. To cover this eventuality, there is a special merger regime that explicitly considers the impact of the merger on Ofwat’s ability to regulate effectively for customers and either prohibits mergers or seeks to extract remedies for customers from company shareholders to make up for any detriment. We assume that ‘regulated money’ refers to the revenue allowances that water undertakers are allowed to recover from customers under their price limits, most recently set by Ofwat in December. In this scenario it would not be possible for such ‘regulated money’ to be used to take over another water company except where that company had already outperformed the price settlement through efficiencies. The companies holding one of the new ‘retail’ WSSL licences are expected to include both new entrants to the market that have no association with any existing water company; and ‘associate licensees’ that form part of an undertaker’s wider group business but are nevertheless required to be established as a separate legal entity. These licenced retailers will operate in the competitive market and may therefore opt to use their own working capital to acquire customers through a transfer following an exit. In this scenario it would therefore similarly be impossible for ‘regulated money’ to be used to take over another water company’s retail arm because these companies are not subject to price limits set by Ofwat through the price review process.  There are already requirements in the water and sewerage undertakers licence of appointment that ensure that all transactions with an associated licensee must be conducted on a fair and non-discriminatory basis and companies are subject to rigorous transfer pricing rules that ensure transactions are conducted on an arms’ length basis. Ofwat’s recently published consultation on the proposed form and content of the new retail licences for the expanded retail market proposes that similar requirements should also be placed on to holders of these new Water and Sewerage Supply Licences (the new retail licences). These checks and balances mean that it would not be possible for the retail arm of a water and sewerage undertaker to use regulated money to take over the customer base of water companies that have exited the market place.

Ofwat

Lord Moynihan: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the definition of a customer to be protected by the core duties of Ofwat.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: The definition of a customer of a water or sewerage undertaker is: any person for or to whom that company provides any services in the course of carrying out the functions of a water undertaker or sewerage undertaker.   A customer of a licensed water supplier is defined as: any person to whom that company provides a supply of water in accordance with its retail authorisation.

Ofwat

Lord Oxburgh: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether Ofwat is adequately protecting customer data by ensuring that access to water meter data is compliant with regulations and best practice regarding access to personal data.

Lord Gardiner of Kimble: Water companies must comply with the Data Protection Act 1988 in all aspects of their businesses, including handling data from meters.   Water UK, through its Revenue Metering Network, provides the opportunity for companies to share best practice and expertise on different approaches to metering. Each water company is responsible for ensuring that its approach is compliant with all legal and regulatory requirements.

Home Office

British Nationality: English Language

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: To ask Her Majesty’s Government by what process they decided to reduce to two the number of examination boards whose English language tests may be used for applications for citizenship.

Lord Bates: From November 2015 the same English language requirements will apply for settlement and naturalisation as already apply to other immigration applications. This is to ensure the same level of assurance, and that the same security requirements apply, throughout the immigration system. From November, only qualifications that are on the Home Office’s approved list will be acceptable. The decision as to which providers are on the list was made following a competitive procurement exercise.A letter was sent to all Awarding Bodies offering ESOL qualifications on 23 March 2015 informing them of the impending change. A further copy of the letter was sent on 13 April as it appeared some recipients were not aware of the original mailing. The Gov.Uk website was amended to reflect these forthcoming changes.

British Nationality: English Language

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of whether the process by which a decision was made to reduce to two the number of examination boards whose English language tests may be used for applications for citizenship met Cabinet Office guidance on procurement in relation to small and medium-sized enterprises.

Lord Bates: Following significant abuse identified in the provision of English language testing the Home Office commissioned an independent review. A key outcome was to reduce the number of service providers. The benefit of the approach was to improve the Home Office’s ability to actively manage service provision. In terms of compliance with Cabinet Office’s policy for small and medium-sized enterprises the procurement process permitted all organisations, irrespective of size, to submit compliant bids in line with the business and commercial requirements. All bids were evaluated in accordance with the requirements and those organisations that were compliant were awarded Concession Agreements.

Children: Immigrants

Baroness Lister of Burtersett: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to take steps to reduce the time taken to resolve the immigration cases of families that have recourse to public funds and are supported by local authorities under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, in the light of the recent report by the Centre on Migration, Policy and Society.

Lord Bates: We work closely with local authorities to ensure that immigration decisions in cases receiving local authority support are made as quickly as possible. The No Recourse to Public Funds Connect database provides a route into the Home Office for local authorities on individual cases, so that these can be dealt with expeditiously. Where migrants granted leave to remain on family grounds show that they are destitute or that there are exceptional circumstances, they are given recourse to public funds.

Refugees: Mediterranean Sea

Lord Hylton: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the report published on 18 June by Human Rights Watch, The Mediterranean Migration Crisis: Why People Flee, What the EU Should Do.

Lord Hylton: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they expect the European Council on 25–26 June to discuss the identification of refugees, resettlement for family reunion in Europe, the care of unaccompanied child migrants, and the possible use of humanitarian visas to help people in need of protection to travel lawfully to the European Union.

Lord Bates: The Prime Minister has written directly to Ken Roth of Human Rights Watch following the publication of the report and we are currently considering its findings. The Government remains firmly of the view that the only sustainable solution to the crisis in the Mediterranean is to address the reasons why people risk their lives, to combat the organised criminals who entice them to do so, and not simply by tackling the problem once it reaches the EU.The issue of migration in the Mediterranean was high on the agenda of the European Council. The European Commission proposals on relocation and resettlement were discussed at the Council as well as return, readmission, reintegration and cooperation with countries of origin and transit. Many of the initiatives discussed are welcome but other elements such as the relocation of asylum seekers within the EU risk exacerbating the situation and we therefore do not support them. With regard to resettlement proposals, the Government remains committed to resettling vulnerable refugees under existing national schemes and has no plans to be part of a separate EU quota scheme.On the matter humanitarian visas for the purpose of seeking international protection within Europe, there is little evidence that providing opportunities for a small number of migrants to travel legally from source countries will have a significant impact on the very large numbers of migrants who want to come to the EU.

Schengen Agreement

The Earl of Shrewsbury: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to join the Schengen area; and what assessment they have made of the effect that doing so would have on the amount of revenue generated from tourists to the United Kingdom.

Lord Bates: The UK is not part of Schengen arrangements on visas and border controls, and we have no plans to join them.The UK decided to retain frontier controls at ports and airports because we believe that, for the UK, they are the most effective means of controlling immigration and combating organised and cross-border crime.

HM Treasury

Block Grant: Northern Ireland

Lord Hay of Ballyore: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what effect the failure to pass the Welfare Reform Bill in Northern Ireland has had, in financial terms, on the block grant to Northern Ireland.

Lord O'Neill of Gatley: As a result of the Northern Ireland Assembly’s inability to pass welfare reform legislation, the Northern Ireland Executive’s allocation has been reduced by £13m in 2013-14, £87m in 2014-15 and £114m in 2015-16 to offset foregone cost savings which would otherwise have accrued. The Executive have been aware of the level of the deduction since March 2014.   Following the exceptional access to the reserve granted to the Northern Ireland Executive in 2014-15, the Executive’s 2015-16 allocation has been reduced by £100m in 2015-16 in accordance with normal budgetary procedures.   These deductions will be reflected in the control totals published alongside departmental Main Supply Estimates for 2015-16.

Northern Ireland Office

Helicopters: Northern Ireland

Lord Rogan: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in each of the years 2010 to 2014, on how many occasions a helicopter was flown from the mainland to Northern Ireland to aid civil authorities.

Lord Dunlop: During the years of 2010 to 2014, there was one occasion, on 28 March 2013 when two helicopters were flown from Great Britain to Northern Ireland to assist with a farming emergency during a period of heavy snow.

Human Rights: Republic of Ireland

Lord Laird: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the implementation by the Republic of Ireland of the human rights section of the Belfast Agreement.

Lord Dunlop: The UK and Irish Governments meet regularly both at ministerial and official level to discuss issues of mutual interest and concerns including matters relating to the implementation of the Belfast Agreement in each jurisdiction. There is no formal mechanism in the Belfast Agreement for monitoring the progress of either government other than the British Irish Intergovernmental Conference.

Department of Health

Human Papillomavirus: Vaccination

The Countess of Mar: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, to date, how many adverse reactions to (1) Cervarix, (2) Gardasil and (3) generic human papilloma virus vaccines have been reported to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency; for each category, how many of those reports are of serious adverse reactions; and what age-specific rate those figures represent.

Lord Prior of Brampton: An error has been identified in the written answer given on 16 June 2015.The correct answer should have been:

A total of 8,243 suspected adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports with human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccines have been reported to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), via the Yellow Card Scheme, up to 3 June 2015.   To date, more than 8 million doses of HPV vaccine have been given across the United Kingdom as part of the routine immunisation programme. The MHRA does not hold data on age-specific vaccine usage, and therefore age-specific reporting rates cannot be calculated.   It is important to note that a Yellow Card report is not proof of a side effect occurring, but a suspicion by the reporter that the vaccine may have been the cause. Yellow Card data cannot be used as a reliable indicator of the frequency of suspected ADRs to vaccines or medicines. The level of ADR reporting may fluctuate between given years due to a variety of reasons such as a medicine being new (reporting rates are generally higher when a product is first introduced), stimulated interest/publicity and variations in exposure to the medicine.   The possible known side effects, and the frequency, are listed in the product information which is provided with the vaccines. The vast majority of the 8,243 ADRs relate to the known risks of vaccination that are well-described in the available product information. The proportion of suspected ADRs for HPV vaccines that were reported as serious (32%) is less than the proportion reported as serious for other routinely used vaccines (68% overall) during the same time period. The expected benefits in protecting against HPV-related mortality and disease outweigh the known side effects of HPV vaccine.   The following table provides a breakdown of UK suspected spontaneous ADRs received via the Yellow Card Scheme in association with the HPV vaccine. The MHRA does not hold data on age-specific vaccine usage, and therefore age-specific reporting rates cannot be calculated.   Vaccine BrandTotal number of reportsNumber of serious reports (% of total)Reporting rate per 1000 doses (serious reporting rates per 1000)Cervarix6,2661,768 (28%)n/a **0.78 (0.22)Gardasil1,471504 (34%)n/a **0.18 (0.06)HPV Brand unspecified507326 (64%)n/a ** 0.06 (0.04)Total for Human Papilloma virus vaccines*8,2442,598 (32%)1.03 (0.32) Source: MHRA sentinel database for adverse reactions. * It should be noted that the total number of reports received will not be equal to the totals in the table above as some reports of suspected adverse reactions may have included more than one vaccine.**Updated UK-wide brand-specific usage data are not available to MHRA at the time of writing based on a minimum of 8 million combined doses of Cervarix and Gardasil administered across the UK to date.  The seriousness criteria for ADR reporting were determined by a working group of the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) and are defined as 6 possible categories which are explained on the Yellow Card. The MHRA asks reporters to select one of the following criteria by ticking the appropriate box on the Yellow Card: (1) patient died due to reaction; (2) life threatening; (3) resulted in hospitalisation or prolonged inpatient hospitalisation; (4) congenital abnormality; and (5) involved persistent or significant disability or incapacity; or (6) if the reaction was deemed medically significant. In addition to this, seriousness of reaction terms has also been defined by the MHRA in its medical dictionary. Therefore an ADR report can be serious because the reporter considers the reaction to be serious or because the reaction term itself is considered serious in the MHRA medical dictionary.

Lord Prior of Brampton: A total of 8,243 suspected adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports with human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccines have been reported to the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), via the Yellow Card Scheme, up to 3 June 2015.   To date, more than 8 million doses of HPV vaccine have been given across the United Kingdom as part of the routine immunisation programme. The MHRA does not hold data on age-specific vaccine usage, and therefore age-specific reporting rates cannot be calculated.   It is important to note that a Yellow Card report is not proof of a side effect occurring, but a suspicion by the reporter that the vaccine may have been the cause. Yellow Card data cannot be used as a reliable indicator of the frequency of suspected ADRs to vaccines or medicines. The level of ADR reporting may fluctuate between given years due to a variety of reasons such as a medicine being new (reporting rates are generally higher when a product is first introduced), stimulated interest/publicity and variations in exposure to the medicine.   The possible known side effects, and the frequency, are listed in the product information which is provided with the vaccines. The vast majority of the 8,243 ADRs relate to the known risks of vaccination that are well-described in the available product information. The proportion of suspected ADRs for HPV vaccines that were reported as serious (32%) is less than the proportion reported as serious for other routinely used vaccines (68% overall) during the same time period. The expected benefits in protecting against HPV-related mortality and disease outweigh the known side effects of HPV vaccine.   The following table provides a breakdown of UK suspected spontaneous ADRs received via the Yellow Card Scheme in association with the HPV vaccine. The MHRA does not hold data on age-specific vaccine usage, and therefore age-specific reporting rates cannot be calculated.   Vaccine BrandTotal number of reportsNumber of serious reports (% of total)Reporting rate per 1000 doses (serious reporting rates per 1000)Cervarix6,2661,768 (28%)n/a **0.78 (0.22)Gardasil1,471504 (34%)n/a **0.18 (0.06)HPV Brand unspecified507326 (64%)n/a ** 0.06 (0.04)Total for Human Papilloma virus vaccines*8,2442,598 (32%)1.03 (0.32) Source: MHRA sentinel database for adverse reactions. * It should be noted that the total number of reports received will not be equal to the totals in the table above as some reports of suspected adverse reactions may have included more than one vaccine.**Updated UK-wide brand-specific usage data are not available to MHRA at the time of writing based on a minimum of 8 million combined doses of Cervarix and Gardasil administered across the UK to date.  The seriousness criteria for ADR reporting were determined by a working group of the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS) and are defined as 6 possible categories which are explained on the Yellow Card. The MHRA asks reporters to select one of the following criteria by ticking the appropriate box on the Yellow Card: (1) patient died due to reaction; (2) life threatening; (3) resulted in hospitalisation or prolonged inpatient hospitalisation; (4) congenital abnormality; and (5) involved persistent or significant disability or incapacity; or (6) if the reaction was deemed medically significant. In addition to this, seriousness of reaction terms has also been defined by the MHRA in its medical dictionary. Therefore an ADR report can be serious because the reporter considers the reaction to be serious or because the reaction term itself is considered serious in the MHRA medical dictionary.